SSPX seems to indicate a definitive break with the Holy See

  • Thread starter Thread starter hazcompat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
Probably. One worrying factor here is the Sacrament of Penance. Without canonical status, SSPX bishops have no jurisdiction from Rome and cannot grant faculties for confession to their priests. Except in a life or death situation, SSPX priests cannot grant absolution. How many SSPX attending Catholics have gone to SSPX confessions thinking that mortal sins have been absolved? The consequences of that for the individuals concerned are potentially very grave. The SSPX knows it has no canonical status, yet SSPX priests persist in hearing confessions when they cannot grant absolution.
Click to expand...
I’m not disagreeing with what you wrote, but your post makes it sounds like they are doing it deliberately. They believe (even if you or I don’t) that the crisis in the Church warrants their hearing confessions and gives them the “supplied jurisdiction” to do so.
 
Lormar said:
I’m not disagreeing with what you wrote, but your post makes it sounds like they are doing it deliberately. They believe (even if you or I don’t) that the crisis in the Church warrants their hearing confessions and gives them the “supplied jurisdiction” to do so.
Click to expand...
Can they not read Canon Law or the other church documents relating to this? As for the ‘crisis in the Church’ if they believe that they have jurisdiction, despite the fact that there is a sitting Pontiff, are they not defying the authority of the Pope. If they believe that the Pope is valid (as they claim to) then they cannot deny that the Pope has jurisdiction over the Church. Is that not a case of the SSPX behaving like sedevacantists, but claiming to be loyal to Rome?
 
Brendan_64 said:
Can they not read Canon Law or the other church documents relating to this? As for the ‘crisis in the Church’ if they believe that they have jurisdiction, despite the fact that there is a sitting Pontiff, are they not defying the authority of the Pope. If they believe that the Pope is valid (as they claim to) then they cannot deny that the Pope has jurisdiction over the Church. Is that not a case of the SSPX behaving like sedevacantists, but claiming to be loyal to Rome?
Click to expand...
Brendan, don’t tell me, tell them. I agree with you, and it is for precisely this reason that I left. The sedevacantists at least deny that the pope is the pope at all, and that, at least, makes the sede stance appear more logical.
 
runningdude said:
Pope Francis was the “runner up” when Pope Benedict was elected. I don’t believe anyone’s priorities changed drastically.
Click to expand...
Interesting I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the Cardinals were forbidden to speak about the elections and in fact swore an oath not to do so oh well live and learn

I do stand by my belief though due to the radical differences in priorities and style
 
Mike30 said:
Interesting I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the Cardinals were forbidden to speak about the elections and in fact swore an oath not to do so oh well live and learn
Click to expand...
My understanding is that these details were present in some diary of a cardinal and were revealed after his death.
 
Mike30 said:
Interesting I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the Cardinals were forbidden to speak about the elections and in fact swore an oath not to do so oh well live and learn

I do stand by my belief though due to the radical differences in priorities and style
Click to expand...
Several have noted that Cardinal Hussar was strongly considered in the election of Benedict XVI.

And technically, the oath, as translated to english by the Vatican, reads:I, N.N., promise and swear that, unless I should receive a special faculty given expressly by the newly-elected Pontiff or by his successors, I will observe absolute and perpetual secrecy with all who are not part of the College of Cardinal electors concerning all matters directly or indirectly related to the ballots cast and their scrutiny for the election of the Supreme Pontiff.

I likewise promise and swear to refrain from using any audio or video equipment capable of recording anything which takes place during the period of the election within Vatican City, and in particular anything which in any way, directly or indirectly, is related to the process of the election itself.

I declare that I take this oath fully aware that an infraction thereof will incur the penalty of automatic (‘latae sententiae’) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand."

Since the oath is administered in Latin, it’s quite possible that some of them misuderstand the oath.

References:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html
 
The one thing that most distresses me about this letter is that the SSPX seeks to speak with an authority that they do not possess to condemn that which the Catholic Church approves. They have no ministry inside the Catholic Church until they are reconciled. This is something that the Holy Father has said. However, it is equally true of us here that we have no authority to call them heretics or schismatics. Until the Church takes further action against them, we should not attempt to go beyond what has been said said by those in authority. If we do, then we are just as bad as the SSPX in usurping Church authority. I think if far better if we just wait and see.
 
JReducation said:
I have neither the time nor the health to argue. My apostolate here is to clarify when something is unclear. I’ve done that part. Please do not try to engage me in a debate. I can no longer do that. I used to and I had a lot of fun with them. But my health no longer allows it. Debates are draining for me. I have so many other demands on my time and energy right now and I don’t know how and I don’t know when I’ll see a respite.
Click to expand...
Praying for you Br JR. Take care and God bless.
 
It’s unfortunate, but not unexpected. I hope at least that the Pope will have the stones to do what they are basically asking for and excommunicate them. You can regard a diseased member as still part of your body in the hopes of curing it, but if it falls off you really don’t have much of a choice but to let it go.
 
Deborah_Marie said:
Well, then I guess I am a heretic, too, because I would go to a Latin Mass in an SSPX chapel before ever attending a NO Mass again. Fortunately, I am close to the ONLY Latin Mass in my Diocese. So, I attend there. However, if the Bishop of my Diocese ever took that Mass away (because he is self-admittingly not a “fan” of TLM), you bet your hide I would drive the hour and half needed to go to an SSPX Mass before I went to the NO Mass two blocks away from my house!
Click to expand...
You aren’t a heretic, but if you would go to an illicit Mass over a licit Mass, you may be at least in schism.
 
Aramis said:
Several have noted that Cardinal Hussar was strongly considered in the election of Benedict XVI.

And technically, the oath, as translated to english by the Vatican, reads:I, N.N., promise and swear that, unless I should receive a special faculty given expressly by the newly-elected Pontiff or by his successors, I will observe absolute and perpetual secrecy with all who are not part of the College of Cardinal electors concerning all matters directly or indirectly related to the ballots cast and their scrutiny for the election of the Supreme Pontiff.

I likewise promise and swear to refrain from using any audio or video equipment capable of recording anything which takes place during the period of the election within Vatican City, and in particular anything which in any way, directly or indirectly, is related to the process of the election itself.

I declare that I take this oath fully aware that an infraction thereof will incur the penalty of automatic (‘latae sententiae’) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand."

Since the oath is administered in Latin, it’s quite possible that some of them misuderstand the oath.

References:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20130222_normas-nonnullas_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html
Click to expand...
Well, I would find it unlikely and highly distressing if the very Cardinals charged with running the Church and setting policies that we the faithful have to follow, would be so ignorant of something that basic. Not to mention, how could a person justify swearing an oath that they themselves did not understand?:eek:

Mind boggling, and quite frankly I feel unbelievable.
 
Lormar said:
What is the heresy that the SSPX holds?

Every Sunday I sit in the pews with many Catholics who truly do hold heretical ideas. We don’t need to be looking to the SSPX for that.

Edited to add that what I posted is directed towards JustAServant.
Click to expand...
Heretics are those who teach false doctrine. So people sitting in the pews with you are not heretics, though they may be following a heretical view or teaching themselves. But to be a heretic, one must be tried by the Church and condemned as one, and it must be proven that one is teaching something contrary to Church teaching, and that one does not repent of it when given a chance to.
 
Constantine TG

I think we can argue that these novel ideas of theirs of “supplied jurisdiction” and of an “eternal rome” could be argued to be heretical. It will be interesting to see how Pope Francis deals with them. I think the SSPX bishops are badly miss-reading their man and Francis will surprise them, to much of an unknown.
 
AndyP2010 said:
Constantine TG

I think we can argue that these novel ideas of theirs of “supplied jurisdiction” and of an “eternal rome” could be argued to be heretical. It will be interesting to see how Pope Francis deals with them. I think the SSPX bishops are badly miss-reading their man and Francis will surprise them, to much of an unknown.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t have a pony anymore in this race, so to speak. But I am still interested to see the conclusion of this “drama”. My comment about “heretics” is just to point out that we shouldn’t be so hastily throwing that word around as if we have the right to label who are heretics or not. Only Church Councils have declared people to be heretics, we shouldn’t make that same mistake here by presuming the authority of the bishops on a matter.

Now, what could the SSPX be found to be in heresy? There is a list that I think, from my own opinion, could be things where they can be found to be in heresy. But the Church first needs to make a pronouncement that they are in danger of heresy for believing what they believe in. Then they must be given a chance to repent. Only if they refuse will they be formally charged as heretics and then they will be thrown out of the Church.
 
pnewton said:
However, it is equally true of us here that we have no authority to call them heretics or schismatics. Until the Church takes further action against them, we should not attempt to go beyond what has been said said by those in authority. If we do, then we are just as bad as the SSPX in usurping Church authority.
Click to expand...
It is entirely reasonable for us to state that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by consecrating bishops in direct defiance of the instructions of the Pope. Pope John Paul II has clearly stated this in very clear, unambiguous terms.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

By stating that Archbishop Lefebvre (and the bishops he consecrated) committed a schismatic act, we are simply stating the position of our Church.
 
AndyP2010 said:
Constantine TG

I think we can argue that these novel ideas of theirs of “supplied jurisdiction” and of an “eternal rome” could be argued to be heretical. It will be interesting to see how Pope Francis deals with them. I think the SSPX bishops are badly miss-reading their man and Francis will surprise them, to much of an unknown.
Click to expand...
Francis will continue with what he is currently doing and basically ignore them. This is the best way to deal with young children having tantrums and despite being grown men, the SSPX bishops are certainly acting like toddlers. They didn’t like Vatican II so they took their toys and went home. It is my belief that Fellay’s letter in April and now this move are desperate calls for attention. Fellay is upset that he is no longer being catered to like he was under Benedict. Francis has likely had extensive contact with the SSPX in Argentina and has no use for them. Wasn’t Williamson kicked out of Argentina for his anti-Semitic rantings? I’d imagine that then Cardinal Bergoglio was well aware of that incident and while I cannot find any public comments from the Archbishop of BA, I’m sure that he found Williamson’s comments disturbing based on his extensive ties with and great love for the Jewish community in BA. Perhaps an intrepid reporter should ask his rabbi friend if he has ever commented about the SSPX.
 
runningdude said:
Pope Francis was the “runner up” when Pope Benedict was elected. I don’t believe anyone’s priorities changed drastically.
Click to expand...
I believe this information is never to be disclosed to the public. Did some Cardinal leak this information in serious violation against his oath?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top